[Bug fortran/33271] nint_2.f90 abort compiled with -O0

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-09-03 14:09 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Let me start off by saying that today is a holiday and that tomoorow I am back
> at work and traveling, I am not allowed to use __any__ business assets for GCC
> connected activity.

That's fine, I'm certainly not in a hurry. We'll have this fixed before
release, and of course the sooner the better, a few days on a corner case is
not a big deal (this testcase is really a corner case).

> We just had an extensive power outage and we just recovering. I will try and
> run that program today? the question is with which C compiler ( the latest
> Trunk, gcc-4.3.0? 4.1.current? 3.3.6 ? or 3.4.6? and even the junky 4.2.1)

Try with the same compiler that gave you the Fortran failure. Otherwise, take
any other one, what the code I posted is really testing is your glibc.

>> One last question: in your build tree, you should have a file named
>> ${builddir}/${target_triplet}/libgfortran/config.h. How does it define the
>> macros HAVE_LLROUND, HAVE_LLROUNDF, HAVE_LLROUNDL, HAVE_LROUND, HAVE_LROUNDF
>> and HAVE_LROUNDL?
> 
> Regarding the last question just look in your own current svn tree.

No, I'm not referring to the source tree but the build tree (the one where your
object build files are stored in). That's the directory where you run the
"configure && make" in.  Could you look into that directory, for a file named
powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu/libgfortran/config.h, and paste the lines of that
file which contain the text "HAVE_LROUND" and the other ones I was quoting?


PS: Please refrain from comments on individuals. There are numerous media to
express your opinion on how open source projects in general (and GCC in
particular) are run, but this Bugzilla isn't one of them. I'm giving you
technical help, and acknowledge the help you're giving the project by having
access to this specific target. Let's keep it constructive.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33271